We tried running things on AWS and digital ocean. Yes, AWS offers a lot of extra value with all the other services. But at the same time, we had a relatively simple application. We ended up managing our own sets of dedicated servers for a fraction of the cost. Peformance is way higher. In the end, the cost difference was just too big to justify it when we were trying to be scrappy. We also realized that all the extra…
Is a billion dollars worth of server lying on the ground?
111–120 of 338 posts
Re: Is a billion dollars worth of server lying on the ground?
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
AWS gives you all the things you'd need to scale, without heavy up-front costs. There's a natural path from small instances -> bigger instances -> load balancers/ELB -> reserved instances (or spot if it fits your workload). For a smaller company, any savings you'd get from owned servers would be offset by much higher dev ops costs. Plus, as mentioned, you get a vast menu of services to choose from, all of which are m…
>can afford a modest markup. I'm with you until that statement. AWS is nothing approaching "modest" in their markup. 20% minimum and typically much higher if you know how to negotiate when purchasing your on-prem gear. And if you happen to be a shop that sweats assets for 7+ years that number starts being measured in the hundreds of percentage points more expensive.
Re: Is a billion dollars worth of server lying on the ground?
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is wether that is worth the lock in.
I worked at a job that had a multi year contract with a hosting company. We paid eight figures annually to lease MIPS on a mainframe. That’s vendor lock in. AWS “lock in” isn’t, it’s “I could terminate for convenience any day I wanted to, but the ROI isn’t there”.
Re: Is a billion dollars worth of server lying on the ground?
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
AWS gives you all the things you'd need to scale, without heavy up-front costs. There's a natural path from small instances -> bigger instances -> load balancers/ELB -> reserved instances (or spot if it fits your workload). For a smaller company, any savings you'd get from owned servers would be offset by much higher dev ops costs. Plus, as mentioned, you get a vast menu of services to choose from, all of which are m…
>can afford a modest markup. I'm with you until that statement. AWS is nothing approaching "modest" in their markup. 20% minimum and typically much higher if you know how to negotiate when purchasing your on-prem gear. And if you happen to be a shop that sweats assets for 7+ years that number starts being measured in the hundreds of percentage points more expensive.
A 20% premium on a $10k/mo server bill is an incredibly small premium to pay versus a single FTE.
Re: Is a billion dollars worth of server lying on the ground?
#115He kind of touches on this in point IV, but never mentioned specifically: the cost comparison is not AWS vs ovh. It's fragment-of-EC2 vs ovh. If you need a predefined small number of VMs and no other functionality, it would be silly to go with AWS. But on the other hand, if you want a set of servers of a given class spawning on demand, with traffic coming in via load balancers, with integrated certificate and DNS man…
AWS gives you all the things you'd need to scale, without heavy up-front costs. There's a natural path from small instances -> bigger instances -> load balancers/ELB -> reserved instances (or spot if it fits your workload). For a smaller company, any savings you'd get from owned servers would be offset by much higher dev ops costs. Plus, as mentioned, you get a vast menu of services to choose from, all of which are m…
A startup doesn't need AWS right off the bat. Planning for scale right from the beginning is a way to quickly bleed $. Of course, if you have VC money, why not spend that cash right?
Where I work we've started non-AWS and have continued non-AWS. We don't have a team of devops engineers, but rather a team where there are a engineers who _can_ do devops. I dread the day we need to move to AWS, but it's much easier moving to AWS than off it.
Re: Is a billion dollars worth of server lying on the ground?
#116Wile I agree mostly with the author... wtf is all the hate with C# I see from people? lol "whatever the heck people use C# for". This pops up so often. C# is the F-350, Catipillar, Kubota of the tech world. Yea, it ain't sexy, but it's meant to just get work done. When it works, no one notices. But when people screw with it, yea, it's easy to laugh at like the videos of crane construction fails (mostly operator error is to blame). While other tech might be the Bentley and Ferrari, they're either all looks and no muscle or catch on fire when something minor goes wrong (looking at you MongoDB :P).
Re: Is a billion dollars worth of server lying on the ground?
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
I work in an ecommerce agency environment and it can be quite frustrating. Every client, no matter how small, has been sold the spiel and had some guy come through and build a boutique cloud infrastructure, CI pipeline and development VM. As if traffic will increase 1000% by next week with no prior warning. It just doesn't happen like that. I spend half my time debugging Hyperscale Bullshit™ that the client never nee…
You make it sound as if devops is the initiator of the complexity problems. This might well be in your case. My experience is the other way around. I'm forced to think about stuff like Kubernetes because the devs are popping "micro-services" for almost anything and the answer to trying to keep things manageable is, hopefully, K8s. Of course they then send funny memes and argue that K8s is overkill. Yet they have no i…
I tried my best not to rag on devops as I am always incredibly impressed by these systems and what can be achieved and automated. It absolutely has it's place.
It's just that all the technology that big companies use become trendy and then end up used at small companies too. Small companies don't realise that the tools aren't solving the problems they have, and they don't understand the vendor lock ins and dependencies that they've introduced into their platform for no real gain.
This happens in all kinds of ways, not just devops. Your example of developers using the microservice pattern is exactly that. When I see a developer recommend microservices my mind flashes forward to all of the extra complexity that entails and how we've just turned a small monolith on one server into 6 pieces of software across distributed servers. Great for big companies, too much complexity for small companies.
Re: Is a billion dollars worth of server lying on the ground?
#118> So, SourceHut is not hosted in anyone's cloud. I own all of the hardware outright and colocate most of it in a local datacenter.
> I just built a new server for git.sr.ht, and boy is she a beaut. It cost me about $5.5K as a one-time upfront cost, and now I just pay for power, bandwidth, and space, which runs about $650/mo for all of my servers (10+).
> Ran back of the napkin numbers with AWS's price estimator for a server of equivalent specs, and without even considering bandwidth usage it'd cost me almost TEN GRAND PER MONTH to host JUST that server alone on AWS.
> AWS is how techbro startups pile up and BURN their investor money.
Re: Is a billion dollars worth of server lying on the ground?
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
At my company we colo at a few local datacenters and have do deal with a huge amount of pressure from our investors as to why we're not using AWS. The points that always seem to come up: * AWS is a known quantity and it's easier to evaluate our business with it. * AWS provides "outage damage control" because AWS outages make the news and customers are more understanding. When our ISP has issues it just looks bad on u…
How do you do failover if a server fails or if connectivity to one of those datacenters is lost? With AWS I could just set up a multi-availability-zone RDS deployment for the database and an auto-scaling group for the web tier and be confident that AWS will recover the system from most failures. To me, that is the major selling point of any of the hyperscale cloud providers.
"Confident"? "Most" failures? Are you merely hopeful that the probability of a bad failure is low, or are you able to test the AWS resiliency techniques you mention and to ensure that they stay working? At what cost?
Re: Is a billion dollars worth of server lying on the ground?
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
AWS gives you all the things you'd need to scale, without heavy up-front costs. There's a natural path from small instances -> bigger instances -> load balancers/ELB -> reserved instances (or spot if it fits your workload). For a smaller company, any savings you'd get from owned servers would be offset by much higher dev ops costs. Plus, as mentioned, you get a vast menu of services to choose from, all of which are m…
> AWS gives you all the things you'd need to scale, without heavy up-front costs A startup doesn't need AWS right off the bat. Planning for scale right from the beginning is a way to quickly bleed $. Of course, if you have VC money, why not spend that cash right? Where I work we've started non-AWS and have continued non-AWS. We don't have a team of devops engineers, but rather a team where there are a engineers who _…
You think you want Elasticache? It's a fifteen minute operation. In that time your devops guy isn't going to have even downloaded the binary and figured out the docs.